|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 14 2026 09:30 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2026 06:12 dyhb wrote:On February 14 2026 03:28 WombaT wrote:On February 13 2026 10:01 dyhb wrote:On February 13 2026 06:58 WombaT wrote:On February 13 2026 05:56 dyhb wrote:On February 13 2026 05:35 Jankisa wrote:Dyhb, as a relative newcomer, you, to me personally are the worse of them. The vile shit you spew out justifying murder of 2 boys, 11 and 8 in Gaza over in the Palestine thready and your doubling down is some of the worse sociopathic shit I've red on this forum, and that's saying a lot.
I don't even want to address anything you write in this thread because you are as uninteresting as you are inhumane. As you can tell from my previous post, I'm not interested in currying favor with somebody that tries to insult their way out of having a topical, interesting conversation. We've all heard it from kids that you're on the side of light and your opponents are on the side of darkness. There's really nowhere to go until you discover shared humanity and empathy. Go find ten things that are genuine disagreements without implying moral bankruptcy, and at least three things from your post that you'd equally apply to describe yourself. I'll take your literal post to give you ideas of insults that you might want to also apply inward. + Show Spoiler +On February 13 2026 01:07 Jankisa wrote:
For me, it's about getting one over Republicans and punishing them and anyone who is white, applying laws selectively and spitting on my fellow countrymen. Basically, I just regurgitate bullshit talking points and marching orders I get from watching left-wing influencers.
Whatever right-wingers propose, I post diatribes I copy pasted from left-wing outlets. I never leaves my media bubble and when challenged, I ignore it and keep on spamming bullshit.
The saddest part is that I'm just a sad incel who has no personality or interests of my own so I live vicariously by watching protesters break the law.
I am so blinded by propaganda and hate, I'm so convinced that Republicans are the poison killing America that I is willing to cheer on downright fascism as long as they punish the people I hate, namely Republicans, MAGA and anyone else progressives blame.
This can range from free-market types and everyone else not breaking the law to oppose the government.
I am a petty person who blame all the issues in the USA on Republicans. Is this just to run in perpetuity no matter how reprehensible one’s policy prescriptions are, or individuals or political movements one carries water for? I'm a little hopeful that you can use your words to describe how and what you find reprehensible, instead of adopting the kind of insulting epithets that debases yourself. You really embody the perspective that talking about the issues is over, and now is the time to flash the middle fingers and perform your outrage. The entire right populist agenda that’s encroaching across much of the ‘Western world’ as it were contains many elements I find rephensible. Civility to me has as a pre-requisite not holding utterly reprehensible views, and not wasting my time. Perfectly happy to civilly engage conservatives over various ideological disagreements, done it here plenty, done it elsewhere plenty. Indulging in conversations where your partner will insist that the sky is actually green very much falls within the purview It ain’t those former types currently driving things, certainly not in the States, from both the top and the bottom of the chain, very much is the latter. What is there to talk about when the goalposts and positions seemingly perpetually shift? When actual good faith discussion is in very short supply indeed? Patience and civility are not infinite resources, eventually people just couldn’t be arsed anymore, that’s not really on them. I find the encroachment of populism to be precisely due to the overgeneralization of the people voting for populists as bad people not worth convincing or engaging beyond the discourse of the middle finger. The further corollary is a fundamental distrust of Democracy by center-left and far-let figures when the voters deliver candidates that are deeply opposed to their policies and not hesitant at all to declare it to their faces in a vocal, brash, and populist manner. I would like to live in a world where the center-right incorporates elements of policies that the center-left screwed up, and become a clear alternative. Consider when Germany's center-right was opposed to stricter asylum/migration policies, and then under Merz basically adopted them to deny power to the AfD's anti-immigration platform. Or when Sweden's right-of-center parties, historically isolating the far-right by refusing them coalition membership, eventually partnered with them. It turns out that many parties and countries aren't willing to do that. It's a pity about the results of it. Now, I'm having trouble deciding whether your plan of action is deliberately designed to extend the power and influence of fringe ideas and fringe parties, or if it's just an accidental consequence of a failure to understand contemporary political issues. The world didn't just happen to get more racist and xenophobic and extreme after Obama and Merkel and Cameron (etc). These were real voting people that decided that mainstream parties/candidates weren't serious about policies to correct problems as they perceived them, and suffered the wrath of the center-left and left-wing for changing their votes to indicate their dissatisfaction. The last thing you want to do in that is to wantonly declare them not worth talking to and morally reprehensible. That just cements the first error. (Also, you always have the choice to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand. The choice to throw up your hands and dismiss new information, because you're tired or perceive bad faith, is still your choice and not some external inevitability. I'd certainly know far less about the left wing and fringe left if I refused to read what was written by people that are dismissive, insulting, or routinely operating in bad faith. Yourself potentially included, since I'm not clairvoyant on why you said "you seem to have rather grasped the lay of the land" to describe an obviously petulant and idiotic lengthy rant.) Why did you feel the need to include a condescending paragraph about Wombat having the choice to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand, in response to Wombat's post indicating that he chooses to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand?
What is there to talk about when the goalposts and positions seemingly perpetually shift? When actual good faith discussion is in very short supply indeed?
Patience and civility are not infinite resources, eventually people just couldn’t be arsed anymore, that’s not really on them.
In order to address the passive voice here. It either fully or partially contradicts your summary of the entire post.
|
On February 14 2026 10:33 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2026 09:30 Fleetfeet wrote:On February 14 2026 06:12 dyhb wrote:On February 14 2026 03:28 WombaT wrote:On February 13 2026 10:01 dyhb wrote:On February 13 2026 06:58 WombaT wrote:On February 13 2026 05:56 dyhb wrote:On February 13 2026 05:35 Jankisa wrote:Dyhb, as a relative newcomer, you, to me personally are the worse of them. The vile shit you spew out justifying murder of 2 boys, 11 and 8 in Gaza over in the Palestine thready and your doubling down is some of the worse sociopathic shit I've red on this forum, and that's saying a lot.
I don't even want to address anything you write in this thread because you are as uninteresting as you are inhumane. As you can tell from my previous post, I'm not interested in currying favor with somebody that tries to insult their way out of having a topical, interesting conversation. We've all heard it from kids that you're on the side of light and your opponents are on the side of darkness. There's really nowhere to go until you discover shared humanity and empathy. Go find ten things that are genuine disagreements without implying moral bankruptcy, and at least three things from your post that you'd equally apply to describe yourself. I'll take your literal post to give you ideas of insults that you might want to also apply inward. + Show Spoiler +On February 13 2026 01:07 Jankisa wrote:
For me, it's about getting one over Republicans and punishing them and anyone who is white, applying laws selectively and spitting on my fellow countrymen. Basically, I just regurgitate bullshit talking points and marching orders I get from watching left-wing influencers.
Whatever right-wingers propose, I post diatribes I copy pasted from left-wing outlets. I never leaves my media bubble and when challenged, I ignore it and keep on spamming bullshit.
The saddest part is that I'm just a sad incel who has no personality or interests of my own so I live vicariously by watching protesters break the law.
I am so blinded by propaganda and hate, I'm so convinced that Republicans are the poison killing America that I is willing to cheer on downright fascism as long as they punish the people I hate, namely Republicans, MAGA and anyone else progressives blame.
This can range from free-market types and everyone else not breaking the law to oppose the government.
I am a petty person who blame all the issues in the USA on Republicans. Is this just to run in perpetuity no matter how reprehensible one’s policy prescriptions are, or individuals or political movements one carries water for? I'm a little hopeful that you can use your words to describe how and what you find reprehensible, instead of adopting the kind of insulting epithets that debases yourself. You really embody the perspective that talking about the issues is over, and now is the time to flash the middle fingers and perform your outrage. The entire right populist agenda that’s encroaching across much of the ‘Western world’ as it were contains many elements I find rephensible. Civility to me has as a pre-requisite not holding utterly reprehensible views, and not wasting my time. Perfectly happy to civilly engage conservatives over various ideological disagreements, done it here plenty, done it elsewhere plenty. Indulging in conversations where your partner will insist that the sky is actually green very much falls within the purview It ain’t those former types currently driving things, certainly not in the States, from both the top and the bottom of the chain, very much is the latter. What is there to talk about when the goalposts and positions seemingly perpetually shift? When actual good faith discussion is in very short supply indeed? Patience and civility are not infinite resources, eventually people just couldn’t be arsed anymore, that’s not really on them. I find the encroachment of populism to be precisely due to the overgeneralization of the people voting for populists as bad people not worth convincing or engaging beyond the discourse of the middle finger. The further corollary is a fundamental distrust of Democracy by center-left and far-let figures when the voters deliver candidates that are deeply opposed to their policies and not hesitant at all to declare it to their faces in a vocal, brash, and populist manner. I would like to live in a world where the center-right incorporates elements of policies that the center-left screwed up, and become a clear alternative. Consider when Germany's center-right was opposed to stricter asylum/migration policies, and then under Merz basically adopted them to deny power to the AfD's anti-immigration platform. Or when Sweden's right-of-center parties, historically isolating the far-right by refusing them coalition membership, eventually partnered with them. It turns out that many parties and countries aren't willing to do that. It's a pity about the results of it. Now, I'm having trouble deciding whether your plan of action is deliberately designed to extend the power and influence of fringe ideas and fringe parties, or if it's just an accidental consequence of a failure to understand contemporary political issues. The world didn't just happen to get more racist and xenophobic and extreme after Obama and Merkel and Cameron (etc). These were real voting people that decided that mainstream parties/candidates weren't serious about policies to correct problems as they perceived them, and suffered the wrath of the center-left and left-wing for changing their votes to indicate their dissatisfaction. The last thing you want to do in that is to wantonly declare them not worth talking to and morally reprehensible. That just cements the first error. (Also, you always have the choice to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand. The choice to throw up your hands and dismiss new information, because you're tired or perceive bad faith, is still your choice and not some external inevitability. I'd certainly know far less about the left wing and fringe left if I refused to read what was written by people that are dismissive, insulting, or routinely operating in bad faith. Yourself potentially included, since I'm not clairvoyant on why you said "you seem to have rather grasped the lay of the land" to describe an obviously petulant and idiotic lengthy rant.) Why did you feel the need to include a condescending paragraph about Wombat having the choice to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand, in response to Wombat's post indicating that he chooses to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand? Show nested quote +What is there to talk about when the goalposts and positions seemingly perpetually shift? When actual good faith discussion is in very short supply indeed?
Patience and civility are not infinite resources, eventually people just couldn’t be arsed anymore, that’s not really on them.
In order to address the passive voice here. It either fully or partially contradicts your summary of the entire post.
I wasn't summarizing a post, I was pointing out that implicit to Wombat's statement was cases where he chose to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand other people. It seems you chose not to listen, understand, or ask questions about that, and instead chose to preach based on your understanding of Wombat's words. Does that, at all, strike you as hypocritical?
I agree that people should engage in discourse with as much civility as they can muster. However, a key social component of that communication is mutual respect, and if that respect is missing or unavailable, it's hard to pin that on just one party. "That's not really on them", as it were. Wombat is welcome to correct me if I'm misunderstanding.
In any case, I wanted to highlight that I'm struggling to get around the idea that you're being hypocritical. Obviously, I don't expect that is your intent. I'm curious if you see it.
|
Canada11477 Posts
On February 13 2026 02:56 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2026 01:07 Jankisa wrote:
Well, they are here, and they will happilly tell you.
For oBlade, about getting one over Democrats and punishing them and anyone who is not white, applying laws selectively and spitting on the rest of the world who has been "taking advantage" of Americans. Basically, just regurgitated "America first" bullshit marching orders he gets form watching his idol Tucker Carlson.
Whatever lefties propose, he has diatribes he copy pasted from stormfront ready, with links and videos from X, the everything app, the guy never leaves his media bubble and when challenged here he just ignores it and keeps on spamming his bullshit. 1) I'm not the Republican... I'm just not. Never was. Not even a young Republican.
Well, that goes without saying. The Republican party exists in name only.
So what are you?
In my experience, people who claim they are neither Republican nor MAGA but reserve 95% of their attacks for Democrats and defend Trump to the hilt come from two major categories:
a) supposed centrists/ independents that are hiding their power levels as MAGA supporters as they know and run out every MAGA line of attack.**
b) supposed Democrats hiding their power levels as progressives/ Tiktok socialists (although these will not defend Trump but instead exclusively attack Democrats.)
You do not position yourself as a centrist. You are definitely not the second category. You aren't libertarian. I doubt you voted for Jill Stein.
I don't actually think you have a political ideology beyond somehow coming to the defence of Trump no matter what he does, which I think is really the only way to support Trump. But taking a cursory glance at your posting history from the beginning of this thread and the previous (closed) one, I think you are single issue voter (supposing you actually are American and can vote). The single issue being get rid of illegal immigrants no matter the cost. That's the only through line I see besides defend Trump, attack Democrats.
edit
**This category comes with two variation:
When pushed on a particular bad Trump policy, they walk back defending the particular point, claiming they don't support Trump (despite running out every MAGA defence of Trump) and then claim that they are either a Conservative and Trump is actually a Democrat OR that they are some variation of Catholic/Franco-fascism found in Spain and that Trump is a Democrat. They will then go back to defending Trump using every MAGA defence.
|
Oblade is like my inlaws. Use every argument and lie that the far right has ever thought of, defend every position they have. Attack every one they attack all the time but when they are pressured on how shitty the political platform is those parties are running on, how little actual policy they propose and how rotten a huge part of their politicians are, claim that they do not actually vote for them.
They want to feel good about ranting about our "new citizens" but not feel the shame that comes with it.
Same thing with oblade, the only person in this room that keeps proudly defending absolutely everything this administration does but how dare we give him a label based on the pages and pages of political opinion he has vomited out. Just be proud of your neo-nazi views. The core of your ideology is that you are better then anyone else, so why hide behind fake outrage every time some one sees you for what you are.
|
United States43835 Posts
Eh, he's not the only one here. But you're not wrong that he wants the political views without the shame that goes with them.
|
On February 14 2026 15:51 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2026 02:56 oBlade wrote:On February 13 2026 01:07 Jankisa wrote:
Well, they are here, and they will happilly tell you.
For oBlade, about getting one over Democrats and punishing them and anyone who is not white, applying laws selectively and spitting on the rest of the world who has been "taking advantage" of Americans. Basically, just regurgitated "America first" bullshit marching orders he gets form watching his idol Tucker Carlson.
Whatever lefties propose, he has diatribes he copy pasted from stormfront ready, with links and videos from X, the everything app, the guy never leaves his media bubble and when challenged here he just ignores it and keeps on spamming his bullshit. 1) I'm not the Republican... I'm just not. Never was. Not even a young Republican. Well, that goes without saying. The Republican party exists in name only.
This is a deepity. It has no meaning that I can see. So the Democrat party exists in name only. MAGA exists in name only.
We name abstract concepts as humans but there really is such a thing as the Republican party that exists in more than name.
On February 14 2026 15:51 Falling wrote:
So what are you?
In my experience, people who claim they are neither Republican nor MAGA but reserve 95% of their attacks for Democrats and defend Trump to the hilt come from two major categories:
a) supposed centrists/ independents that are hiding their power levels as MAGA supporters as they know and run out every MAGA line of attack.**
b) supposed Democrats hiding their power levels as progressives/ Tiktok socialists (although these will not defend Trump but instead exclusively attack Democrats.)
You do not position yourself as a centrist. You are definitely not the second category. You aren't libertarian. I doubt you voted for Jill Stein.
There is nothing wrong with being a Republican. I'm not one. Centrist is about right. Your "attacks" accounting being made-up notwithstanding, when there is a broad Democrat or leftist view that the Department of Homeland Security aren't law enforcement, it's a pretty easy attack or defense to make. Like someone could attack one thing, and be right, regardless of how big or small the thing is. For example, one person might have a problem with the industrial extermination of a religion by a regime. Another person might spend all their time saying, but in the process of fighting a war to stop them, someone on our side shot a medic or doctor. The fact that the first person doesn't allot time to talking about that doesn't mean they are in favor of shooting medics or doctors. It potentially does mean they think the industrial extermination of a religion was more significant, which is true. Like if at the dinner table all you say is how's the chicken, good, it doesn't mean the vast majority of your entire family's motivation of what they did that day that guided their life and beliefs was the chicken. You want to arrive at sweeping pigeonholing conclusions from... limited information.
On February 14 2026 15:51 Falling wrote:
I don't actually think you have a political ideology beyond somehow coming to the defence of Trump no matter what he does, which I think is really the only way to support Trump. But taking a cursory glance at your posting history from the beginning of this thread and the previous (closed) one, I think you are single issue voter (supposing you actually are American and can vote). The single issue being get rid of illegal immigrants no matter the cost. That's the only through line I see besides defend Trump, attack Democrats.
Yeah supposing I'm American. I could be a big fat Putin spy!
I have no ideology, I just have ideas. On immigration specifically I'm around 80%-90% where Obama was 15 years ago which Reagan was to the left of.
On February 14 2026 19:18 Broetchenholer wrote:
Oblade is like my inlaws. Use every argument and lie that the far right has ever thought of, defend every position they have. Attack every one they attack all the time but when they are pressured on how shitty the political platform is those parties are running on, how little actual policy they propose and how rotten a huge part of their politicians are, claim that they do not actually vote for them.
They want to feel good about ranting about our "new citizens" but not feel the shame that comes with it.
I have nothing to do with your in-laws or Germany and its history and whatever shame complex your anecdote is about.
US politicians have been "rotten" for decades. Please pressure me about how little policy US politicians propose and understand and how rotten they all are, I would love to enlighten you.
On February 14 2026 19:18 Broetchenholer wrote:
Same thing with oblade, the only person in this room that keeps proudly defending absolutely everything this administration does
Literally no.
And for that to be true to begin with it would require first people to be attacking absolutely everything the Trump administration does, which would be its own error. Most people are not informed or interested enough to even know 90%+ of what any administration does.
On February 14 2026 19:18 Broetchenholer wrote:
but how dare we give him a label based on the pages and pages of political opinion he has vomited out. Just be proud of your neo-nazi views.
Never once in my life espoused or supported neo-Nazi views.
You can't quote it from any of said pages because it does not exist.
Tell your complaints directly to your in-laws instead of projecting that elsewhere. You've got nothing but hyperbole and lies and there was no reason to slander me to begin with.
On February 14 2026 19:18 Broetchenholer wrote:
The core of your ideology is that you are better then anyone else, so why hide behind fake outrage every time some one sees you for what you are.
I don't have some ideology. Better than everyone? Again no.
|
On February 14 2026 09:55 Falling wrote:Was it a good move for Trump to have done those tariffs in the first place? And was it also a good move to increase Switzerland's tariff from 30 to 39% because he didn't like how they tried to explain why the trade deficit was variable due to fluctuating gold imports? But then reduced it to 15% after receiving a bribe from a bunch of Swiss billionaires? And were any of these 'emergencies' that he is invoking emergency powers of the president rather than going through Congress? Furthermore, is it a good move that Trump wants to block the opening of the Gordie Howe bridge, which he approved in his last term as a priority project. And to block it to gain 50% control of the bridge which they already have to demand that US steel be used which they already did and couldn't change it anyways because it's already built? Show nested quote +On February 14 2026 03:40 Jankisa wrote:
All the while Pam Bondi gave one of the most shameful displays of a public temper tantrum I've ever seen, and all of it in order to play defense for her pedophile boss and the Epstein class. At the beginning, I was willing to allow there was at least some plausible deniability for people like Trump in that just because a person flew on one of Epstein's jets, it didn't necessarily follow that they were going to his island. But it seems like the first releases were to make Clinton look as bad as possible and release trivial stuff on Trump. The more that is revealed the deeper it gets and with Bondi's response, we're looking at a full blown cover-up with her running interference. How are we in a world were the victims' names are not being redacted and the alleged perpetrators are redacted? And the Attorney General of the United States of America's response is, but Obama? But the DOW is 50000? How dare you question our Dear Leader? There is no pursuit of justice with this AG. Not even a little. It's just political games and fake outrage and sanctimonious finger wagging and crying "lawfare" lawfare". Spare me.
We, here in Croatia had a partisan hack, ex corrupt judge who was assigned all the cases involving the party in power corruption put in the position of AG after they consolidated power after the last elections, he's been doing some fucked up shit like digging up investigations into trivial shit on opposition leaders spouses and similar, but even this fucker would never come to our parliament and be dumb enough to yell about GDP when asked about legal matters.
Bondi is just an embarrassment, it's very obvious that Trump appointed her because she was compromised by him and others before and he likes how she looks, to his wittered brain that display was probably awesome, as it was, I'm sure to about a quarter of Americans, unfortunately, but from outside looking in it's downright insane.
The fact that even Nancy Mace who is also off the rails Trump sycophant called for an investigation over the photo of Bondi having the search histories of senators who had access to illegally still redacted files gives some hope that Senate and Congress can grow some balls and at least try to keep an inkling of their power, while they still can, and hold this ghoul responsible for that hysterical display.
One thing I really, really hope happens is for Merrick Garland to be called to testify, first to invalidate the "but what about" bullshit but also, I'd really love to know why was nothing done with these files under Biden.
This is a huge coverup and it spans multiple administrations, let's be equal opportunity inquisitive and look into it in a real way.
I know this is wishful thinking given the power level of just the folks that were in Epstein's emails, considering that is just the tip of the iceberg, it seems like when things crossed from straight up pimping Epstein did for these rich fucks into stuff that is even more illegal, they would take it to other means of communication, like the example from the Steve Tisch emails:
https://www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2026/02/analysis-of-epstein-files-reveal-frequent-communication-between-steve-tisch-and-epstein
At one point as him and Epstein got into talking about (I assume) someone who wasn't of age, Epstein asked for his number so they can talk about it offline.
So far, 300 GB of 10+ TB of files were released, less then 1/3 of the documents and most illegally redacted, they released what they thought was enough to get the public off their backs, hopefully they were wrong and a lot of these rich pieces of shit get what's coming to them.
|
Massie and Khanna went on the House floor and doxxed 4 "names" they saw in the unredacted files that turned out to be people chosen for police photo lineups. Because the point is to advance their own careers. Then they blamed the DOJ for trying to comply with the unwieldy demands of the law they passed. If you don't redact names you get thousands of repeat cases of that. Plus victims. If you redact incorrectly, you get the same. Now if you take time to make sure and redact correctly because there's no magic wand to redact 10TB of files, you're stalling and covering up. When all is said and done you will probably largely end up with a few unredacted names that everyone is already decided on in their own heads, like Clinton or Prince Andrew or Stephen Hawking, with matching allegations of uncharged misconduct that remains uncharged because the same 10TB files simply lack enough corroborating evidence.
|
Life is hard for young hetero men in the US!!
You grow up and get to be 12 years old, stuck in school - suddenly yacht and island owning presidents and bankers compete for women your age.
Also there is no middleclass.
From the POV of a multiple billionaire a total net worth of $5M and $5 look .. the same.
Middleclass is a thing made up by poor people to feel better about themselves and helps absurdly rich people to justify that they are just like you and "middleclass+"
|
Northern Ireland26516 Posts
On February 14 2026 12:58 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2026 10:33 dyhb wrote:On February 14 2026 09:30 Fleetfeet wrote:On February 14 2026 06:12 dyhb wrote:On February 14 2026 03:28 WombaT wrote:On February 13 2026 10:01 dyhb wrote:On February 13 2026 06:58 WombaT wrote:On February 13 2026 05:56 dyhb wrote:On February 13 2026 05:35 Jankisa wrote:Dyhb, as a relative newcomer, you, to me personally are the worse of them. The vile shit you spew out justifying murder of 2 boys, 11 and 8 in Gaza over in the Palestine thready and your doubling down is some of the worse sociopathic shit I've red on this forum, and that's saying a lot.
I don't even want to address anything you write in this thread because you are as uninteresting as you are inhumane. As you can tell from my previous post, I'm not interested in currying favor with somebody that tries to insult their way out of having a topical, interesting conversation. We've all heard it from kids that you're on the side of light and your opponents are on the side of darkness. There's really nowhere to go until you discover shared humanity and empathy. Go find ten things that are genuine disagreements without implying moral bankruptcy, and at least three things from your post that you'd equally apply to describe yourself. I'll take your literal post to give you ideas of insults that you might want to also apply inward. + Show Spoiler +On February 13 2026 01:07 Jankisa wrote:
For me, it's about getting one over Republicans and punishing them and anyone who is white, applying laws selectively and spitting on my fellow countrymen. Basically, I just regurgitate bullshit talking points and marching orders I get from watching left-wing influencers.
Whatever right-wingers propose, I post diatribes I copy pasted from left-wing outlets. I never leaves my media bubble and when challenged, I ignore it and keep on spamming bullshit.
The saddest part is that I'm just a sad incel who has no personality or interests of my own so I live vicariously by watching protesters break the law.
I am so blinded by propaganda and hate, I'm so convinced that Republicans are the poison killing America that I is willing to cheer on downright fascism as long as they punish the people I hate, namely Republicans, MAGA and anyone else progressives blame.
This can range from free-market types and everyone else not breaking the law to oppose the government.
I am a petty person who blame all the issues in the USA on Republicans. Is this just to run in perpetuity no matter how reprehensible one’s policy prescriptions are, or individuals or political movements one carries water for? I'm a little hopeful that you can use your words to describe how and what you find reprehensible, instead of adopting the kind of insulting epithets that debases yourself. You really embody the perspective that talking about the issues is over, and now is the time to flash the middle fingers and perform your outrage. The entire right populist agenda that’s encroaching across much of the ‘Western world’ as it were contains many elements I find rephensible. Civility to me has as a pre-requisite not holding utterly reprehensible views, and not wasting my time. Perfectly happy to civilly engage conservatives over various ideological disagreements, done it here plenty, done it elsewhere plenty. Indulging in conversations where your partner will insist that the sky is actually green very much falls within the purview It ain’t those former types currently driving things, certainly not in the States, from both the top and the bottom of the chain, very much is the latter. What is there to talk about when the goalposts and positions seemingly perpetually shift? When actual good faith discussion is in very short supply indeed? Patience and civility are not infinite resources, eventually people just couldn’t be arsed anymore, that’s not really on them. I find the encroachment of populism to be precisely due to the overgeneralization of the people voting for populists as bad people not worth convincing or engaging beyond the discourse of the middle finger. The further corollary is a fundamental distrust of Democracy by center-left and far-let figures when the voters deliver candidates that are deeply opposed to their policies and not hesitant at all to declare it to their faces in a vocal, brash, and populist manner. I would like to live in a world where the center-right incorporates elements of policies that the center-left screwed up, and become a clear alternative. Consider when Germany's center-right was opposed to stricter asylum/migration policies, and then under Merz basically adopted them to deny power to the AfD's anti-immigration platform. Or when Sweden's right-of-center parties, historically isolating the far-right by refusing them coalition membership, eventually partnered with them. It turns out that many parties and countries aren't willing to do that. It's a pity about the results of it. Now, I'm having trouble deciding whether your plan of action is deliberately designed to extend the power and influence of fringe ideas and fringe parties, or if it's just an accidental consequence of a failure to understand contemporary political issues. The world didn't just happen to get more racist and xenophobic and extreme after Obama and Merkel and Cameron (etc). These were real voting people that decided that mainstream parties/candidates weren't serious about policies to correct problems as they perceived them, and suffered the wrath of the center-left and left-wing for changing their votes to indicate their dissatisfaction. The last thing you want to do in that is to wantonly declare them not worth talking to and morally reprehensible. That just cements the first error. (Also, you always have the choice to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand. The choice to throw up your hands and dismiss new information, because you're tired or perceive bad faith, is still your choice and not some external inevitability. I'd certainly know far less about the left wing and fringe left if I refused to read what was written by people that are dismissive, insulting, or routinely operating in bad faith. Yourself potentially included, since I'm not clairvoyant on why you said "you seem to have rather grasped the lay of the land" to describe an obviously petulant and idiotic lengthy rant.) Why did you feel the need to include a condescending paragraph about Wombat having the choice to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand, in response to Wombat's post indicating that he chooses to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand? What is there to talk about when the goalposts and positions seemingly perpetually shift? When actual good faith discussion is in very short supply indeed?
Patience and civility are not infinite resources, eventually people just couldn’t be arsed anymore, that’s not really on them.
In order to address the passive voice here. It either fully or partially contradicts your summary of the entire post. I wasn't summarizing a post, I was pointing out that implicit to Wombat's statement was cases where he chose to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand other people. It seems you chose not to listen, understand, or ask questions about that, and instead chose to preach based on your understanding of Wombat's words. Does that, at all, strike you as hypocritical? I agree that people should engage in discourse with as much civility as they can muster. However, a key social component of that communication is mutual respect, and if that respect is missing or unavailable, it's hard to pin that on just one party. "That's not really on them", as it were. Wombat is welcome to correct me if I'm misunderstanding. In any case, I wanted to highlight that I'm struggling to get around the idea that you're being hypocritical. Obviously, I don't expect that is your intent. I'm curious if you see it.
Essentially yes, I’m talking more about a general shift in the last decade+, as I see it anyway. Not necessarily the internal dynamics of this thread, it’s considerably worse in the wild as it were.
Let us take two hypothetical conservatives. They both profess to have concerns about immigration, especially of the illegal kind. They claim the Constitution as a quasi-sacred document, are concerned about state overreach in the socioeconomic and security realms, and worry that the executive is becoming too powerful. Just to take a few talking points.
I’m perfectly capable of having a civil conversation on any of those things, there may be disagreement, there may be some agreement, albeit coming from my different ideological lens.
Now, having had those conversations, if Conservative A and me don’t align on everything, but they express serious misgivings about various transgressions the Trump administration have made against their own stated concerns and values, I’m perfectly happy to continue civilly engaging there. If Conservative B does the opposite, how am I meant to continue to civilly engage? As I consider civility, ‘agree to disagree’ on certain points of divergence only functions if the points of disagreement are earnestly and consistently held positions.
If we’re agreeing to disagree on a point of principle you’re happy to abandon whenever it’s your dude or dudette at the wheel, we’re not really engaging in anything worthwhile, or at least I wouldn’t consider it thus.
As I’ve stressed numerous times in here, I don’t expect people to agree with or share my values, although it would be nice! I do expect people to (somewhat, very few people are 100% consistent) adhere to what they tell me they believe.
If they do not, demonstrably then it’s a waste of my time having civil discussions with them, because they’re not honest interlocutors, and last I checked dishonesty isn’t considered especially civil.
|
On February 14 2026 22:59 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2026 09:55 Falling wrote:Was it a good move for Trump to have done those tariffs in the first place? And was it also a good move to increase Switzerland's tariff from 30 to 39% because he didn't like how they tried to explain why the trade deficit was variable due to fluctuating gold imports? But then reduced it to 15% after receiving a bribe from a bunch of Swiss billionaires? And were any of these 'emergencies' that he is invoking emergency powers of the president rather than going through Congress? Furthermore, is it a good move that Trump wants to block the opening of the Gordie Howe bridge, which he approved in his last term as a priority project. And to block it to gain 50% control of the bridge which they already have to demand that US steel be used which they already did and couldn't change it anyways because it's already built? On February 14 2026 03:40 Jankisa wrote:
All the while Pam Bondi gave one of the most shameful displays of a public temper tantrum I've ever seen, and all of it in order to play defense for her pedophile boss and the Epstein class. At the beginning, I was willing to allow there was at least some plausible deniability for people like Trump in that just because a person flew on one of Epstein's jets, it didn't necessarily follow that they were going to his island. But it seems like the first releases were to make Clinton look as bad as possible and release trivial stuff on Trump. The more that is revealed the deeper it gets and with Bondi's response, we're looking at a full blown cover-up with her running interference. How are we in a world were the victims' names are not being redacted and the alleged perpetrators are redacted? And the Attorney General of the United States of America's response is, but Obama? But the DOW is 50000? How dare you question our Dear Leader? There is no pursuit of justice with this AG. Not even a little. It's just political games and fake outrage and sanctimonious finger wagging and crying "lawfare" lawfare". Spare me. We, here in Croatia had a partisan hack, ex corrupt judge who was assigned all the cases involving the party in power corruption put in the position of AG after they consolidated power after the last elections, he's been doing some fucked up shit like digging up investigations into trivial shit on opposition leaders spouses and similar, but even this fucker would never come to our parliament and be dumb enough to yell about GDP when asked about legal matters. Bondi is just an embarrassment, it's very obvious that Trump appointed her because she was compromised by him and others before and he likes how she looks, to his wittered brain that display was probably awesome, as it was, I'm sure to about a quarter of Americans, unfortunately, but from outside looking in it's downright insane. The fact that even Nancy Mace who is also off the rails Trump sycophant called for an investigation over the photo of Bondi having the search histories of senators who had access to illegally still redacted files gives some hope that Senate and Congress can grow some balls and at least try to keep an inkling of their power, while they still can, and hold this ghoul responsible for that hysterical display. One thing I really, really hope happens is for Merrick Garland to be called to testify, first to invalidate the "but what about" bullshit but also, I'd really love to know why was nothing done with these files under Biden. This is a huge coverup and it spans multiple administrations, let's be equal opportunity inquisitive and look into it in a real way. I know this is wishful thinking given the power level of just the folks that were in Epstein's emails, considering that is just the tip of the iceberg, it seems like when things crossed from straight up pimping Epstein did for these rich fucks into stuff that is even more illegal, they would take it to other means of communication, like the example from the Steve Tisch emails: https://www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2026/02/analysis-of-epstein-files-reveal-frequent-communication-between-steve-tisch-and-epsteinAt one point as him and Epstein got into talking about (I assume) someone who wasn't of age, Epstein asked for his number so they can talk about it offline. So far, 300 GB of 10+ TB of files were released, less then 1/3 of the documents and most illegally redacted, they released what they thought was enough to get the public off their backs, hopefully they were wrong and a lot of these rich pieces of shit get what's coming to them.
I doubt this is true, but what if the Dems realized that if they released the Epstein files Trump supporters wouldn’t believe them and claim they were only putting out the names that hurt the Republicans, or just straight out lying. And because it wasn’t that important to their base they would let the Republicans rant about them over and over only to do this if and when they lost power to them. With my hope that if they get power back they release them all without redacting anything.
Probably just protecting their own rich disgusting donors or whatever. But it would be nice if it was the long con
|
Northern Ireland26516 Posts
On February 14 2026 15:51 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2026 02:56 oBlade wrote:On February 13 2026 01:07 Jankisa wrote:
Well, they are here, and they will happilly tell you.
For oBlade, about getting one over Democrats and punishing them and anyone who is not white, applying laws selectively and spitting on the rest of the world who has been "taking advantage" of Americans. Basically, just regurgitated "America first" bullshit marching orders he gets form watching his idol Tucker Carlson.
Whatever lefties propose, he has diatribes he copy pasted from stormfront ready, with links and videos from X, the everything app, the guy never leaves his media bubble and when challenged here he just ignores it and keeps on spamming his bullshit. 1) I'm not the Republican... I'm just not. Never was. Not even a young Republican. Well, that goes without saying. The Republican party exists in name only. So what are you? In my experience, people who claim they are neither Republican nor MAGA but reserve 95% of their attacks for Democrats and defend Trump to the hilt come from two major categories: a) supposed centrists/ independents that are hiding their power levels as MAGA supporters as they know and run out every MAGA line of attack.** b) supposed Democrats hiding their power levels as progressives/ Tiktok socialists (although these will not defend Trump but instead exclusively attack Democrats.) You do not position yourself as a centrist. You are definitely not the second category. You aren't libertarian. I doubt you voted for Jill Stein. I don't actually think you have a political ideology beyond somehow coming to the defence of Trump no matter what he does, which I think is really the only way to support Trump. But taking a cursory glance at your posting history from the beginning of this thread and the previous (closed) one, I think you are single issue voter (supposing you actually are American and can vote). The single issue being get rid of illegal immigrants no matter the cost. That's the only through line I see besides defend Trump, attack Democrats. edit **This category comes with two variation: When pushed on a particular bad Trump policy, they walk back defending the particular point, claiming they don't support Trump (despite running out every MAGA defence of Trump) and then claim that they are either a Conservative and Trump is actually a Democrat OR that they are some variation of Catholic/Franco-fascism found in Spain and that Trump is a Democrat. They will then go back to defending Trump using every MAGA defence.
To me ‘centrists’ are very like ‘nice guys’. If you’re the one claiming it, you almost invariably aren’t, it’s a designation that needs to be bestowed by others to have any weight
|
United States43835 Posts
Centrists are armed with the moral authority of 1945 Spain.
|
If you have two parties and both are radical in their own ways and frequently clash almost violently, it‘s a structural problem.
I‘m by no means a legionnaire of a political spectrum, if I think the country requires the program of a specific party to progress the way I want it to, I‘ll vote that one. Is that considered centrist ?
It‘s nice to have options in the voting booth.
|
If you support secret police in any capacity because whatever they're doing is worth the loss of the rule of law, you're in the realm of fascism or Stalinism, which are as far away from the political center of the Western world as possible.
|
On February 15 2026 00:37 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2026 12:58 Fleetfeet wrote:On February 14 2026 10:33 dyhb wrote:On February 14 2026 09:30 Fleetfeet wrote:On February 14 2026 06:12 dyhb wrote:On February 14 2026 03:28 WombaT wrote:On February 13 2026 10:01 dyhb wrote:On February 13 2026 06:58 WombaT wrote:On February 13 2026 05:56 dyhb wrote:On February 13 2026 05:35 Jankisa wrote:Dyhb, as a relative newcomer, you, to me personally are the worse of them. The vile shit you spew out justifying murder of 2 boys, 11 and 8 in Gaza over in the Palestine thready and your doubling down is some of the worse sociopathic shit I've red on this forum, and that's saying a lot.
I don't even want to address anything you write in this thread because you are as uninteresting as you are inhumane. As you can tell from my previous post, I'm not interested in currying favor with somebody that tries to insult their way out of having a topical, interesting conversation. We've all heard it from kids that you're on the side of light and your opponents are on the side of darkness. There's really nowhere to go until you discover shared humanity and empathy. Go find ten things that are genuine disagreements without implying moral bankruptcy, and at least three things from your post that you'd equally apply to describe yourself. I'll take your literal post to give you ideas of insults that you might want to also apply inward. + Show Spoiler +On February 13 2026 01:07 Jankisa wrote:
For me, it's about getting one over Republicans and punishing them and anyone who is white, applying laws selectively and spitting on my fellow countrymen. Basically, I just regurgitate bullshit talking points and marching orders I get from watching left-wing influencers.
Whatever right-wingers propose, I post diatribes I copy pasted from left-wing outlets. I never leaves my media bubble and when challenged, I ignore it and keep on spamming bullshit.
The saddest part is that I'm just a sad incel who has no personality or interests of my own so I live vicariously by watching protesters break the law.
I am so blinded by propaganda and hate, I'm so convinced that Republicans are the poison killing America that I is willing to cheer on downright fascism as long as they punish the people I hate, namely Republicans, MAGA and anyone else progressives blame.
This can range from free-market types and everyone else not breaking the law to oppose the government.
I am a petty person who blame all the issues in the USA on Republicans. Is this just to run in perpetuity no matter how reprehensible one’s policy prescriptions are, or individuals or political movements one carries water for? I'm a little hopeful that you can use your words to describe how and what you find reprehensible, instead of adopting the kind of insulting epithets that debases yourself. You really embody the perspective that talking about the issues is over, and now is the time to flash the middle fingers and perform your outrage. The entire right populist agenda that’s encroaching across much of the ‘Western world’ as it were contains many elements I find rephensible. Civility to me has as a pre-requisite not holding utterly reprehensible views, and not wasting my time. Perfectly happy to civilly engage conservatives over various ideological disagreements, done it here plenty, done it elsewhere plenty. Indulging in conversations where your partner will insist that the sky is actually green very much falls within the purview It ain’t those former types currently driving things, certainly not in the States, from both the top and the bottom of the chain, very much is the latter. What is there to talk about when the goalposts and positions seemingly perpetually shift? When actual good faith discussion is in very short supply indeed? Patience and civility are not infinite resources, eventually people just couldn’t be arsed anymore, that’s not really on them. I find the encroachment of populism to be precisely due to the overgeneralization of the people voting for populists as bad people not worth convincing or engaging beyond the discourse of the middle finger. The further corollary is a fundamental distrust of Democracy by center-left and far-let figures when the voters deliver candidates that are deeply opposed to their policies and not hesitant at all to declare it to their faces in a vocal, brash, and populist manner. I would like to live in a world where the center-right incorporates elements of policies that the center-left screwed up, and become a clear alternative. Consider when Germany's center-right was opposed to stricter asylum/migration policies, and then under Merz basically adopted them to deny power to the AfD's anti-immigration platform. Or when Sweden's right-of-center parties, historically isolating the far-right by refusing them coalition membership, eventually partnered with them. It turns out that many parties and countries aren't willing to do that. It's a pity about the results of it. Now, I'm having trouble deciding whether your plan of action is deliberately designed to extend the power and influence of fringe ideas and fringe parties, or if it's just an accidental consequence of a failure to understand contemporary political issues. The world didn't just happen to get more racist and xenophobic and extreme after Obama and Merkel and Cameron (etc). These were real voting people that decided that mainstream parties/candidates weren't serious about policies to correct problems as they perceived them, and suffered the wrath of the center-left and left-wing for changing their votes to indicate their dissatisfaction. The last thing you want to do in that is to wantonly declare them not worth talking to and morally reprehensible. That just cements the first error. (Also, you always have the choice to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand. The choice to throw up your hands and dismiss new information, because you're tired or perceive bad faith, is still your choice and not some external inevitability. I'd certainly know far less about the left wing and fringe left if I refused to read what was written by people that are dismissive, insulting, or routinely operating in bad faith. Yourself potentially included, since I'm not clairvoyant on why you said "you seem to have rather grasped the lay of the land" to describe an obviously petulant and idiotic lengthy rant.) Why did you feel the need to include a condescending paragraph about Wombat having the choice to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand, in response to Wombat's post indicating that he chooses to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand? What is there to talk about when the goalposts and positions seemingly perpetually shift? When actual good faith discussion is in very short supply indeed?
Patience and civility are not infinite resources, eventually people just couldn’t be arsed anymore, that’s not really on them.
In order to address the passive voice here. It either fully or partially contradicts your summary of the entire post. I wasn't summarizing a post, I was pointing out that implicit to Wombat's statement was cases where he chose to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand other people. It seems you chose not to listen, understand, or ask questions about that, and instead chose to preach based on your understanding of Wombat's words. Does that, at all, strike you as hypocritical? I agree that people should engage in discourse with as much civility as they can muster. However, a key social component of that communication is mutual respect, and if that respect is missing or unavailable, it's hard to pin that on just one party. "That's not really on them", as it were. Wombat is welcome to correct me if I'm misunderstanding. In any case, I wanted to highlight that I'm struggling to get around the idea that you're being hypocritical. Obviously, I don't expect that is your intent. I'm curious if you see it. Essentially yes, I’m talking more about a general shift in the last decade+, as I see it anyway. Not necessarily the internal dynamics of this thread, it’s considerably worse in the wild as it were. Let us take two hypothetical conservatives. They both profess to have concerns about immigration, especially of the illegal kind. They claim the Constitution as a quasi-sacred document, are concerned about state overreach in the socioeconomic and security realms, and worry that the executive is becoming too powerful. Just to take a few talking points. I’m perfectly capable of having a civil conversation on any of those things, there may be disagreement, there may be some agreement, albeit coming from my different ideological lens. Now, having had those conversations, if Conservative A and me don’t align on everything, but they express serious misgivings about various transgressions the Trump administration have made against their own stated concerns and values, I’m perfectly happy to continue civilly engaging there. If Conservative B does the opposite, how am I meant to continue to civilly engage? As I consider civility, ‘agree to disagree’ on certain points of divergence only functions if the points of disagreement are earnestly and consistently held positions. If we’re agreeing to disagree on a point of principle you’re happy to abandon whenever it’s your dude or dudette at the wheel, we’re not really engaging in anything worthwhile, or at least I wouldn’t consider it thus. As I’ve stressed numerous times in here, I don’t expect people to agree with or share my values, although it would be nice! I do expect people to (somewhat, very few people are 100% consistent) adhere to what they tell me they believe. If they do not, demonstrably then it’s a waste of my time having civil discussions with them, because they’re not honest interlocutors, and last I checked dishonesty isn’t considered especially civil. I find this to be a motte and bailey approach. You want credit for thinking through the positions people hold, and suspending engagement conditionally on your perception of their hypocrisy. That has its own problems, but it's somewhat reasonable.
Then I come across your bailey:
punishing them and anyone who is not white
applying laws selectively
spitting on the rest of the world
regurgitated "America first" bullshit marching orders he gets form watching his idol Tucker Carlson.
diatribes he copy pasted from stormfront ready
when challenged here he just ignores it
just a sad incel
lives vicariously by watching jack booted thugs executing people
it's grievance
blinded by propaganda and hate
convinced that immigrants are the poison killing his country
willing to cheer on downright fascism as long as they punish the people he hates
You think that screed represents a grasp of the lay of the land rather solidly. Just re-read it one more time. I brought it up to you, and it's zero backdown and zero regrets. Far from trying to base engagement on civility, and judge earnest and consistently held positions, you've now endorsed the exact opposite and are possibly proud to do so! (Fleetfeet chose to not address this, but perhaps he will in the interest of addressing the main point instead of digging around the edges to expose hypocrisy). I'm a little scared to ask you what you think should be done with these incel white supremacist stormfront-posters that like watching thugs executing people, but you can see I'm having trouble reconciling one version of you with another.
Yes, I wanted to see if this was a moment of anger (we all have them, politics sucks), because I want to believe that there is a civil opposition represented here that keeps their head about them and maintains civility and empathy and shared humanity. I didn't find it this go-around, frankly, but I'm new here. Exactly zero people posted that that post went too far that weren't the targets of the post, and that's saying something. My perspective is to keep the dialogue open and with a base level of civility, ease off the gas pedal, and not adopt Jankisa's methods. If this isn't an attempt to otherize, then please cite which of the 12 describe you (it's ridiculously easy to point fingers). There is a risk of just being awful to other people in the name of politics with the thin excuse that you sincerely tried to not be an awful person at first, as if your twin on the right wouldn't immediately claim equal right to the same excuse.
|
On February 15 2026 01:30 LightSpectra wrote:
If you support secret police in any capacity because whatever they're doing is worth the loss of the rule of law, you're in the realm of fascism or Stalinism, which are as far away from the political center of the Western world as possible.
Yeah, I guess.
Police can disguise themselves as civilians, that doesn‘t make them secret. It begins being secret police the moment they are allowed to break the most basic laws to reach political goals.
Austria has the prerequisite that police can‘t break laws even to prevent crime afaik. Probably a lesson from nazi rule. The US doesn‘t have that limiter. If you looked for illicit stuff online it might be a fed from the US selling it to you, in theory.
|
On February 15 2026 00:43 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2026 15:51 Falling wrote:On February 13 2026 02:56 oBlade wrote:On February 13 2026 01:07 Jankisa wrote:
Well, they are here, and they will happilly tell you.
For oBlade, about getting one over Democrats and punishing them and anyone who is not white, applying laws selectively and spitting on the rest of the world who has been "taking advantage" of Americans. Basically, just regurgitated "America first" bullshit marching orders he gets form watching his idol Tucker Carlson.
Whatever lefties propose, he has diatribes he copy pasted from stormfront ready, with links and videos from X, the everything app, the guy never leaves his media bubble and when challenged here he just ignores it and keeps on spamming his bullshit. 1) I'm not the Republican... I'm just not. Never was. Not even a young Republican. Well, that goes without saying. The Republican party exists in name only. So what are you? In my experience, people who claim they are neither Republican nor MAGA but reserve 95% of their attacks for Democrats and defend Trump to the hilt come from two major categories: a) supposed centrists/ independents that are hiding their power levels as MAGA supporters as they know and run out every MAGA line of attack.** b) supposed Democrats hiding their power levels as progressives/ Tiktok socialists (although these will not defend Trump but instead exclusively attack Democrats.) You do not position yourself as a centrist. You are definitely not the second category. You aren't libertarian. I doubt you voted for Jill Stein. I don't actually think you have a political ideology beyond somehow coming to the defence of Trump no matter what he does, which I think is really the only way to support Trump. But taking a cursory glance at your posting history from the beginning of this thread and the previous (closed) one, I think you are single issue voter (supposing you actually are American and can vote). The single issue being get rid of illegal immigrants no matter the cost. That's the only through line I see besides defend Trump, attack Democrats. edit **This category comes with two variation: When pushed on a particular bad Trump policy, they walk back defending the particular point, claiming they don't support Trump (despite running out every MAGA defence of Trump) and then claim that they are either a Conservative and Trump is actually a Democrat OR that they are some variation of Catholic/Franco-fascism found in Spain and that Trump is a Democrat. They will then go back to defending Trump using every MAGA defence. To me ‘centrists’ are very like ‘nice guys’. If you’re the one claiming it, you almost invariably aren’t, it’s a designation that needs to be bestowed by others to have any weight
"I'm an avowed Democrat."
So you say.
"No, like, registered, card-carrying, in the party."
Anyone can do that, parties are open in the US.
"But I voted Democrat in the last 20 elections."
Past performance is not indicative of future results.
"I'm literally elected to Congress as a Democrat."
Proves nothing.
"I just happen to be pro-life."
Therefore you aren't a Democrat. What you say matters not. I have bestowed upon you the great honor of Centrist. Your radical aversion to the strict borders of party lines is something many aspire to but few can dream of achieving. Now gtfo.
The dominant affiliation in America is no party. If you're from elsewhere and happen to have assumed "Democrat" is the default worldview in America because it's how our media leans, you could be excused for making that mistake. The only reasons to gatekeep centrism, the most common alignment, are to groupthink excommunicate noncoforming Democrats (like the above concocted example) or to reward apparent Republican turncoats with social acceptance. And the only way to make not believing centrists work is to also not believe Republicans and Democrats whom you override with your own label either.
|
Northern Ireland26516 Posts
On February 15 2026 01:46 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2026 00:37 WombaT wrote:On February 14 2026 12:58 Fleetfeet wrote:On February 14 2026 10:33 dyhb wrote:On February 14 2026 09:30 Fleetfeet wrote:On February 14 2026 06:12 dyhb wrote:On February 14 2026 03:28 WombaT wrote:On February 13 2026 10:01 dyhb wrote:On February 13 2026 06:58 WombaT wrote:On February 13 2026 05:56 dyhb wrote:[quote]As you can tell from my previous post, I'm not interested in currying favor with somebody that tries to insult their way out of having a topical, interesting conversation. We've all heard it from kids that you're on the side of light and your opponents are on the side of darkness. There's really nowhere to go until you discover shared humanity and empathy. Go find ten things that are genuine disagreements without implying moral bankruptcy, and at least three things from your post that you'd equally apply to describe yourself. I'll take your literal post to give you ideas of insults that you might want to also apply inward. + Show Spoiler +On February 13 2026 01:07 Jankisa wrote:
For me, it's about getting one over Republicans and punishing them and anyone who is white, applying laws selectively and spitting on my fellow countrymen. Basically, I just regurgitate bullshit talking points and marching orders I get from watching left-wing influencers.
Whatever right-wingers propose, I post diatribes I copy pasted from left-wing outlets. I never leaves my media bubble and when challenged, I ignore it and keep on spamming bullshit.
The saddest part is that I'm just a sad incel who has no personality or interests of my own so I live vicariously by watching protesters break the law.
I am so blinded by propaganda and hate, I'm so convinced that Republicans are the poison killing America that I is willing to cheer on downright fascism as long as they punish the people I hate, namely Republicans, MAGA and anyone else progressives blame.
This can range from free-market types and everyone else not breaking the law to oppose the government.
I am a petty person who blame all the issues in the USA on Republicans. Is this just to run in perpetuity no matter how reprehensible one’s policy prescriptions are, or individuals or political movements one carries water for? I'm a little hopeful that you can use your words to describe how and what you find reprehensible, instead of adopting the kind of insulting epithets that debases yourself. You really embody the perspective that talking about the issues is over, and now is the time to flash the middle fingers and perform your outrage. The entire right populist agenda that’s encroaching across much of the ‘Western world’ as it were contains many elements I find rephensible. Civility to me has as a pre-requisite not holding utterly reprehensible views, and not wasting my time. Perfectly happy to civilly engage conservatives over various ideological disagreements, done it here plenty, done it elsewhere plenty. Indulging in conversations where your partner will insist that the sky is actually green very much falls within the purview It ain’t those former types currently driving things, certainly not in the States, from both the top and the bottom of the chain, very much is the latter. What is there to talk about when the goalposts and positions seemingly perpetually shift? When actual good faith discussion is in very short supply indeed? Patience and civility are not infinite resources, eventually people just couldn’t be arsed anymore, that’s not really on them. I find the encroachment of populism to be precisely due to the overgeneralization of the people voting for populists as bad people not worth convincing or engaging beyond the discourse of the middle finger. The further corollary is a fundamental distrust of Democracy by center-left and far-let figures when the voters deliver candidates that are deeply opposed to their policies and not hesitant at all to declare it to their faces in a vocal, brash, and populist manner. I would like to live in a world where the center-right incorporates elements of policies that the center-left screwed up, and become a clear alternative. Consider when Germany's center-right was opposed to stricter asylum/migration policies, and then under Merz basically adopted them to deny power to the AfD's anti-immigration platform. Or when Sweden's right-of-center parties, historically isolating the far-right by refusing them coalition membership, eventually partnered with them. It turns out that many parties and countries aren't willing to do that. It's a pity about the results of it. Now, I'm having trouble deciding whether your plan of action is deliberately designed to extend the power and influence of fringe ideas and fringe parties, or if it's just an accidental consequence of a failure to understand contemporary political issues. The world didn't just happen to get more racist and xenophobic and extreme after Obama and Merkel and Cameron (etc). These were real voting people that decided that mainstream parties/candidates weren't serious about policies to correct problems as they perceived them, and suffered the wrath of the center-left and left-wing for changing their votes to indicate their dissatisfaction. The last thing you want to do in that is to wantonly declare them not worth talking to and morally reprehensible. That just cements the first error. (Also, you always have the choice to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand. The choice to throw up your hands and dismiss new information, because you're tired or perceive bad faith, is still your choice and not some external inevitability. I'd certainly know far less about the left wing and fringe left if I refused to read what was written by people that are dismissive, insulting, or routinely operating in bad faith. Yourself potentially included, since I'm not clairvoyant on why you said "you seem to have rather grasped the lay of the land" to describe an obviously petulant and idiotic lengthy rant.) Why did you feel the need to include a condescending paragraph about Wombat having the choice to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand, in response to Wombat's post indicating that he chooses to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand? What is there to talk about when the goalposts and positions seemingly perpetually shift? When actual good faith discussion is in very short supply indeed?
Patience and civility are not infinite resources, eventually people just couldn’t be arsed anymore, that’s not really on them.
In order to address the passive voice here. It either fully or partially contradicts your summary of the entire post. I wasn't summarizing a post, I was pointing out that implicit to Wombat's statement was cases where he chose to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand other people. It seems you chose not to listen, understand, or ask questions about that, and instead chose to preach based on your understanding of Wombat's words. Does that, at all, strike you as hypocritical? I agree that people should engage in discourse with as much civility as they can muster. However, a key social component of that communication is mutual respect, and if that respect is missing or unavailable, it's hard to pin that on just one party. "That's not really on them", as it were. Wombat is welcome to correct me if I'm misunderstanding. In any case, I wanted to highlight that I'm struggling to get around the idea that you're being hypocritical. Obviously, I don't expect that is your intent. I'm curious if you see it. Essentially yes, I’m talking more about a general shift in the last decade+, as I see it anyway. Not necessarily the internal dynamics of this thread, it’s considerably worse in the wild as it were. Let us take two hypothetical conservatives. They both profess to have concerns about immigration, especially of the illegal kind. They claim the Constitution as a quasi-sacred document, are concerned about state overreach in the socioeconomic and security realms, and worry that the executive is becoming too powerful. Just to take a few talking points. I’m perfectly capable of having a civil conversation on any of those things, there may be disagreement, there may be some agreement, albeit coming from my different ideological lens. Now, having had those conversations, if Conservative A and me don’t align on everything, but they express serious misgivings about various transgressions the Trump administration have made against their own stated concerns and values, I’m perfectly happy to continue civilly engaging there. If Conservative B does the opposite, how am I meant to continue to civilly engage? As I consider civility, ‘agree to disagree’ on certain points of divergence only functions if the points of disagreement are earnestly and consistently held positions. If we’re agreeing to disagree on a point of principle you’re happy to abandon whenever it’s your dude or dudette at the wheel, we’re not really engaging in anything worthwhile, or at least I wouldn’t consider it thus. As I’ve stressed numerous times in here, I don’t expect people to agree with or share my values, although it would be nice! I do expect people to (somewhat, very few people are 100% consistent) adhere to what they tell me they believe. If they do not, demonstrably then it’s a waste of my time having civil discussions with them, because they’re not honest interlocutors, and last I checked dishonesty isn’t considered especially civil. I find this to be a motte and bailey approach. You want credit for thinking through the positions people hold, and suspending engagement conditionally on your perception of their hypocrisy. That has its own problems, but it's somewhat reasonable. Then I come across your bailey: punishing them and anyone who is not white applying laws selectively spitting on the rest of the world regurgitated "America first" bullshit marching orders he gets form watching his idol Tucker Carlson. diatribes he copy pasted from stormfront ready when challenged here he just ignores it just a sad incel lives vicariously by watching jack booted thugs executing people it's grievance blinded by propaganda and hate convinced that immigrants are the poison killing his country willing to cheer on downright fascism as long as they punish the people he hates You think that screed represents a grasp of the lay of the land rather solidly. Just re-read it one more time. I brought it up to you, and it's zero backdown and zero regrets. Far from trying to base engagement on civility, and judge earnest and consistently held positions, you've now endorsed the exact opposite and are possibly proud to do so! (Fleetfeet chose to not address this, but perhaps he will in the interest of addressing the main point instead of digging around the edges to expose hypocrisy). I'm a little scared to ask you what you think should be done with these incel white supremacist stormfront-posters that like watching thugs executing people, but you can see I'm having trouble reconciling one version of you with another. Yes, I wanted to see if this was a moment of anger (we all have them, politics sucks), because I want to believe that there is a civil opposition represented here that keeps their head about them and maintains civility and empathy and shared humanity. I didn't find it this go-around, frankly, but I'm new here. Exactly zero people posted that that post went too far that weren't the targets of the post, and that's saying something. My perspective is to keep the dialogue open and with a base level of civility, ease off the gas pedal, and not adopt Jankisa's methods. If this isn't an attempt to otherize, then please cite which of the 12 describe you (it's ridiculously easy to point fingers). There is a risk of just being awful to other people in the name of politics with the thin excuse that you sincerely tried to not be an awful person at first, as if your twin on the right wouldn't immediately claim equal right to the same excuse.
I didn’t choose, nor desire modern conservatism to take this form, I just have to take it as I see it. Which is thus.
Happy to earnestly engage people who don’t suck Trump off or deny that ICE are pointlessly shooting people. If one ain’t doing that then I’m not talking about you
If one wants do that I don’t see any point in engaging, and as I said prior it’s really not on me.
This current breed of conservatives wants the shroud of civil engagement to legitimise their nonsense, where blank dismissal is just as appropriate
|
Northern Ireland26516 Posts
On February 15 2026 02:09 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2026 00:43 WombaT wrote:On February 14 2026 15:51 Falling wrote:On February 13 2026 02:56 oBlade wrote:On February 13 2026 01:07 Jankisa wrote:
Well, they are here, and they will happilly tell you.
For oBlade, about getting one over Democrats and punishing them and anyone who is not white, applying laws selectively and spitting on the rest of the world who has been "taking advantage" of Americans. Basically, just regurgitated "America first" bullshit marching orders he gets form watching his idol Tucker Carlson.
Whatever lefties propose, he has diatribes he copy pasted from stormfront ready, with links and videos from X, the everything app, the guy never leaves his media bubble and when challenged here he just ignores it and keeps on spamming his bullshit. 1) I'm not the Republican... I'm just not. Never was. Not even a young Republican. Well, that goes without saying. The Republican party exists in name only. So what are you? In my experience, people who claim they are neither Republican nor MAGA but reserve 95% of their attacks for Democrats and defend Trump to the hilt come from two major categories: a) supposed centrists/ independents that are hiding their power levels as MAGA supporters as they know and run out every MAGA line of attack.** b) supposed Democrats hiding their power levels as progressives/ Tiktok socialists (although these will not defend Trump but instead exclusively attack Democrats.) You do not position yourself as a centrist. You are definitely not the second category. You aren't libertarian. I doubt you voted for Jill Stein. I don't actually think you have a political ideology beyond somehow coming to the defence of Trump no matter what he does, which I think is really the only way to support Trump. But taking a cursory glance at your posting history from the beginning of this thread and the previous (closed) one, I think you are single issue voter (supposing you actually are American and can vote). The single issue being get rid of illegal immigrants no matter the cost. That's the only through line I see besides defend Trump, attack Democrats. edit **This category comes with two variation: When pushed on a particular bad Trump policy, they walk back defending the particular point, claiming they don't support Trump (despite running out every MAGA defence of Trump) and then claim that they are either a Conservative and Trump is actually a Democrat OR that they are some variation of Catholic/Franco-fascism found in Spain and that Trump is a Democrat. They will then go back to defending Trump using every MAGA defence. To me ‘centrists’ are very like ‘nice guys’. If you’re the one claiming it, you almost invariably aren’t, it’s a designation that needs to be bestowed by others to have any weight "I'm an avowed Democrat."So you say. "No, like, registered, card-carrying, in the party."Anyone can do that, parties are open in the US. "But I voted Democrat in the last 20 elections."Past performance is not indicative of future results. "I'm literally elected to Congress as a Democrat."Proves nothing. "I just happen to be pro-life."Therefore you aren't a Democrat. What you say matters not. I have bestowed upon you the great honor of Centrist. Your radical aversion to the strict borders of party lines is something many aspire to but few can dream of achieving. Now gtfo. The dominant affiliation in America is no party. If you're from elsewhere and happen to have assumed "Democrat" is the default worldview in America because it's how our media leans, you could be excused for making that mistake. The only reasons to gatekeep centrism, the most common alignment, are to groupthink excommunicate noncoforming Democrats (like the above concocted example) or to reward apparent Republican turncoats with social acceptance. And the only way to make not believing centrists work is to also not believe Republicans and Democrats whom you override with your own label either.
I’m not gatekeeping centrism, I just consider the idea that you’re a centrist as utterly laughable
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
